Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1887-04-29
AN IMPORTANT CASE.
A Supreme Court Decision in which Mr..
y. II. Garfield is Interested.


The following is brief history of one
of the most complicated cases ever argued |
before the Supreme Court of the United |
States at Washington, in which several
prominent citizens of Minneapolis, Mimi,
as well az our townsman, Thomas II. |
Garfield, are affected In the Supreme
Court, April 49, a decision was rendered
in the case of the Minneapolis Agricul
tural and Mechanical association, Jacob
X. Sidle r. b. Langdon, the State Ma
tional bank of Minneapolis ct al, APP
pellants, VS.. Thomas II. Garfield, by
which the decree of the Circuit Court for
the district of Minnesota was modified
and beyond that affirmed. The question
involved was the right of Mr.. Garfield to
the stock and land of the Minneapolis
Agricultural and Mechanical association
through purchase from w. S. King, who
held the stock.
In 1873 the Minneapolis Agricultural
and Mechanical association was Il corpora
ton, aud owned the fair grounds which
consisted of 20 acres of land, then in the
outskirts of Minneapolis, but now in the
midst of that flourishng city. Its stock
consisted of 500 shares of $50 each, amount
ing to $40 600. Mr.. William S. King own
ed all the stock of the corporation, and
]
owned the land represented by the stock.
| He made "A contract in August, 1913, with
Mr.. Garfield to sell him (Canfield) the
land for sos, 600 in the bonds of the North
ern Pacific Railroad company, and to
turn over to him the stock of the corpora
ton. In pursuance of this agreement,
Mr.. King executed n deed of the
land TO Mr.. Garfield. He also pro
cured deed of the land to be executed to
Mr.. Garfield by the officers and directors
~
was signed by all the stockholders,
as well as by all the directors of the asso-
citation, but the supreme Court of the
State of Minnesota atterward decided,
that although the property equitably be
longed to Mr.. Garfield, yet as the direc
tors executed the deed without first hold
ing meeting and passing a resolution
authorizing them to sign it, it was
void, as between Mr.. Garfield and a cled
itor of Mr.. King, although valid deed
on its face. On the delivery of these deeds
Mr.. Garfield paid Mr.. King the $4,000 in
road company which were then selling at
par and supposed he had a perfect title to
the fair grounds Mr. King did not turn
over to Mr. Garfield the stock of the cor
poration as he had agreed to, the same be
| ing in pledge to the State National bank
of Minneapolis to secure the payment of
various debts of Mr. King. Shortly after
the payment of the S65, 900 in bonds to
| Mr.. King, which was on the 18th day of
September, 1878, the panic of 1873 com
menced on the 18th of the same month
! The State National bank had agreed to re-
ceive these bonds of Mr.. King at 80 cents
on the dollar IN payment OF their debt, but
| Mr.. King, after getting them from Mr..
Caniield, delayed handing them over to
the bank until some time afterward, when
/ the bonds, in consequence Of the panic,
having decreased in value, the bank
/ 90 pI tn "a n
menced suit in the State Court of MIN
nesota against Mr.. King and Mr.. Garfield,
| hoping thereby to hold Mr.. Garfield
through the 500 shares OF stock it held on
collateral. Mr.. King soon after took the
benefit of the bankrupt law, and the bank
pursued Mr.. Garfield, setting up the tech
nicai flaw in the deed, which the State
Court sustained. Had Mr.. King deliver
ed the bonds to the bank when he first
received them, as he agreed to do, and
paid his debt, the question of Mr.. Can
fields title would never have arisen and
this suit never have been commenced.
The bank then attempted to sell the stock
at auction, but the sale was not bona fdC,
the purchase being made by Mr..
knight, the son-in-law of the
president of the bank and the purchase
price was paid by the president. Short
ly after, Mr.. knight sold nine ,tentns of
the stock TO Mr.. Dorillus Morrison for
about $4,000, and Mr.. Morrison and Mr..
Knight recognized the corporation by the
election of new set of directors, who con
veyed the land tol Mr.. Morrison, nine
tenths, and Mr.. Knight one-tenth Mr.
King took possession of the land and gave
a series of fairs, and that of 1873 proved
disastrous, leaving deficit of about ST.
600 to be provided for.
Several of the leading citizens of Min
neapolls, among them especially DOrllluS
Morrison, j. X. Sidle, president of the
First National bank, RoberC b. I.angdon
W. ID. Washburn, John G. Oswald, G. A.
Pillsbury,- Farnham * Lovejoy, j. w.
Johnson L. Day and others, not wishing
to have the fair considered a failure,
and at the same time thinking
they could wrest from Mr.. Garfield the
whole land which he had bought and paid
for, and which was then becoming very
valuable by the rapid growth of Mime
apois, secretly formed "A syndicate for the
accomplishment of their designs, contrib
uting the sum of $4,000 with which to pay
off Mr.. Kings debts, including the Sl4,
600 paid by Mr. Morrison to Mr.. Knight
and to secure these contributions for
their advances, Mr.. Morrison conveyed
the nine tenths of the land which he held
to Messrs. Side and Langdon, in trust, to
sell the same and pay off the contribution
thus attempting to cheat Mr.. Garfield out
of the land entirely.
Mr.. Garfield at this stage of the pro-
ceedlngs, despairing of securing any rem
Guy lIOul Tue Dldlt court, a
suit in the Circuit Court of the United
States for the district of Minnesota, en-
joining the parties from making
any further transfers, and after
SIX years contest, in which a
large volume of testimony was taken,
mostly from the conspirators themselves,
that court awarded the land to Mr.. Can
field on the ground that he held all the
equities but made him pay to Sldle and
Langdon what they had paid to Morrison
for the conveyance of Morrison to them
They appealed to the Supreme Court of
the United States from the decision of
Judge Nelson. The Supreme Court on
Monday affirmed the decision of the Cir
cult Court with the slight modification
that Mr.. Garfield should pay to the Messrs.
Sidle and Langdon about $4,000 more than
he was required to pay by the court be
low. This decision confirms the title to
the fair grounds in Mr.. Garfield, and as
> these are now worth fully S5O0,0 O0 the
litigation has not proved losing one to
Mr.. Garfield